It is quite simple what I have said. In my opinion only members who are going to discuss, contributeto topics, engage with other members should be on this forum, not those who disrupt it.This is a very acceptable standard. It is only unacceptable to some not here to discuss, but to preachtheir antiparanormal views to us. You sound like you are putting yourself in the latter category.

It is quite simple what I have said. In my opinion only members who are going to discuss, contributeto topics, engage with other members should be on this forum, not those who disrupt it.This is a very acceptable standard. It is only unacceptable to some not here to discuss, but to preachtheir antiparanormal views to us. You sound like you are putting yourself in the latter category.

It is not about disagreement at all.

In an earlier post, you provided an example of a "mature" exchange between you and Scepcop. Here is what he said to refresh your memory:

Scepcop wrote:That's a great insight and analysis Indigo Child, and I'm glad to see you back too.

When I was writing that, I knew that some of what I said about Buddhism were probably straw mans. But my questions and concerns were still valid, cause they were about deeper things and the implication of certain issues in life.

Of course people interpret things differently, but the question of whether life should be enjoyed is valid.

Thanks again and hope to see more of your insights.

That's not a discussion, that's an agreement to what you posted. There was no exchange of ideas. My thoughts remain valid in my eyes. If anyone else would like to chime in, feel free. I'm open to healthy and constructive criticism.

Buddhism were probably straw mans. But my questions and concerns were still valid, cause they were about deeper things and the implication of certain issues in life.

Of course people interpret things differently, but the question of whether life should be enjoyed is valid.

He is agreeing with my point on the alternative interpretations, and at the same time he saying his point is validon the orhodox interpretations of Buddhism which can be life denying, and thus the question of enjoying life is still valid.He has shown he has engaged my point, he is agreed to what is valid in it, and is adding more of what is missing in it.

This was a short example, I can show you others as well if you want(I have to use my own examples, because I am not entitled touse others without their consent) I don't think the point is complex here. The point is to engage what others are saying so the discussion can evolve. This is a standard in any professional discourse. Engaging what others are saying is not the same as agreeingwith them. If I am asked, "Evaluate the philosophy of Hobbes" I have to engage with the texts of Hobbes and his main ideas, even if Idisagree with them.

Disagree with me fine, but disagree by engaging my points. The same goes for a discussion between anybody else. To use our example,you never engaged the new information I gave on the hidden object in the can experiment. You said you could explain the steelball(whichwas never established) but you did not explain the water and the permenant magnet. Note, we were talking about all experiments, not justthis one. You did not engage the evidence in the other experiments, which I underlined. So my criticism of you not engaging others pointsis entirely valid. You are not allowing discussion to happen. You are consistently doing this in many threads.

Buddhism were probably straw mans. But my questions and concerns were still valid, cause they were about deeper things and the implication of certain issues in life.

Of course people interpret things differently, but the question of whether life should be enjoyed is valid.

He is agreeing with my point on the alternative interpretations, and at the same time he saying his point is validon the orhodox interpretations of Buddhism which can be life denying, and thus the question of enjoying life is still valid.He has shown he has engaged my point, he is agreed to what is valid in it, and is adding more of what is missing in it.

This was a short example, I can show you others as well if you want(I have to use my own examples, because I am not entitled touse others without their consent) I don't think the point is complex here. The point is to engage what others are saying so the discussion can evolve. This is a standard in any professional discourse. Engaging what others are saying is not the same as agreeingwith them. If I am asked, "Evaluate the philosophy of Hobbes" I have to engage with the texts of Hobbes and his main ideas, even if Idisagree with them.

Disagree with me fine, but disagree by engaging my points. The same goes for a discussion between anybody else. To use our example,you never engaged the new information I gave on the hidden object in the can experiment. You said you could explain the steelball(whichwas never established) but you did not explain the water and the permenant magnet. Note, we were talking about all experiments, not justthis one. You did not engage the evidence in the other experiments, which I underlined. So my criticism of you not engaging others pointsis entirely valid. You are not allowing discussion to happen. You are consistently doing this in many threads.

Okay, now this conversation has become immature and I won't comment on agreeing or disagreeing further.I don't suppose you remember which video had the "water and the magnet" trick in it, do you?

You find this immature? You are making it pretty clear to the objective reader thatyou have no intention to engage and discuss peoples points on the paranormal. So the natural questionwould then be from the objective reader, then what are you doing at a pro paranormal forum? You aremaking it pretty clear here you do not respect the ethos of this web site.

Now in another thread you have told me this is all about opinions and beliefs for you, nothing to dowith scientific evidence. You keep telling us you value your credibility, but you have no idea how quicklyyou are losing it with the statements you are making.

As regards to the Geller experiments, we can continuee this discussion in that thread. I will just say here,there is no requirement in science that an experiment be filmed. The report of the scientist is enough. Todispute that, is tantamount to accusing the scientist of lying. You are making a rather large implicit claimhere that all of SRI is lying about Uri Geller. Such statements can be done for defamation and libel.

Indigo Child wrote: The report of the scientist is enough. Todispute that, is tantamount to accusing the scientist of lying. You are making a rather large implicit claimhere that all of SRI is lying about Uri Geller. Such statements can be done for defamation and libel.

No I'm not, I'm saying their experiments did not rule out cheating. And to accuse me of claiming otherwise can be done for defamation and libel.

Indigo Child - You have posted enough here to make my head explode. This topic was started to get feedback from everyone about skeptics. Not pseudoskeptics and Internet trolls. They are another problem for another day.

NinjaPuppy wrote:Indigo Child - You have posted enough here to make my head explode. This topic was started to get feedback from everyone about skeptics. Not pseudoskeptics and Internet trolls. They are another problem for another day.

Well, my point about not allowing pseudoskeptics to appropriate the term "skeptic" was my point. Were all skeptics here. The real problemhere is pseudoskepticism masquerading as skepticism. My feedback on this, and in the end obviously it is up to you and Winston how muchyou consider this feedback, is to crack down on pseudoskeptics on this boards, who clearly do not respect the ethos of this web site. As youjust did recently with ciscop.

Being a skeptic, as in somebody who inquires, examines and researches something is a good thing. We would do harm to limit thaton this board. From what I can gather, and I am open to correction by Winston, Winston setup this site to scientifically evaluate and exposepseudoskeptical arguments against the paranormal. So the very nature of this web site is polemical and dialectical, so obviously critical discussionis a must on the forum. This obviously means peoples views will be open to scrutiny. So skepticism in and of itself is something very good for thisforum. I could understand, if this was a new-age or believers board, why skepticism would be a bad thing. But this is not a new-age board. I amalways open to having my views scrutanized, and in my opinion so should everybody else be. However, what needs to be enforced, in my humbleopinion is a professional and intelligent standard of dialogue, and this needs to happen from an administrative level.

I think I have said enough on this issue in this thread and others, so nothing more needs to be said from me on this. The final call is obviously yoursand Winston's.

Indigo Child wrote:Well, my point about not allowing pseudoskeptics to appropriate the term "skeptic" was my point. Were all skeptics here. The real problem here is pseudoskepticism masquerading as skepticism. My feedback on this, and in the end obviously it is up to you and Winston how muchyou consider this feedback, is to crack down on pseudoskeptics on this boards, who clearly do not respect the ethos of this web site. As youjust did recently with ciscop.

For the record, ciscop defined himself as a 'cynic', not a skeptic. He was not banned due to his opinions or beliefs or pseudoskeptic tactics.

Indigo Child wrote:Being a skeptic, as in somebody who inquires, examines and researches something is a good thing. We would do harm to limit thaton this board. From what I can gather, and I am open to correction by Winston, Winston setup this site to scientifically evaluate and exposepseudoskeptical arguments against the paranormal. So the very nature of this web site is polemical and dialectical, so obviously critical discussionis a must on the forum.

Exactly. It is the very nature of this board that makes it stand out among the many other paranormal forums. Winston has created something new and different here. Not to mention that he has incorporated a plethora of assorted subject topics rather than the same old stuff found on many other less interesting forums. There's a little something here for everyone, pro or con, to catch their interest.

Indigo Child wrote:This obviously means peoples views will be open to scrutiny. So skepticism in and of itself is something very good for thisforum.

That is the nature of the beast.

Indigo Child wrote:I could understand, if this was a new-age or believers board, why skepticism would be a bad thing. But this is not a new-age board. I amalways open to having my views scrutanized, and in my opinion so should everybody else be. However, what needs to be enforced, in my humbleopinion is a professional and intelligent standard of dialogue, and this needs to happen from an administrative level.

I do not understand what you mean by intelligent standard of dialogue. IMO, this forum runs rings around most other forums when it comes to intelligence. Please explain where you feel we are missing the mark.

NinjaPuppy wrote:Indigo Child - You have posted enough here to make my head explode. This topic was started to get feedback from everyone about skeptics. Not pseudoskeptics and Internet trolls. They are another problem for another day.

Well, my point about not allowing pseudoskeptics to appropriate the term "skeptic" was my point. Were all skeptics here. The real problemhere is pseudoskepticism masquerading as skepticism. My feedback on this, and in the end obviously it is up to you and Winston how muchyou consider this feedback, is to crack down on pseudoskeptics on this boards, who clearly do not respect the ethos of this web site. As youjust did recently with ciscop.

Being a skeptic, as in somebody who inquires, examines and researches something is a good thing. We would do harm to limit thaton this board. From what I can gather, and I am open to correction by Winston, Winston setup this site to scientifically evaluate and exposepseudoskeptical arguments against the paranormal. So the very nature of this web site is polemical and dialectical, so obviously critical discussionis a must on the forum. This obviously means peoples views will be open to scrutiny. So skepticism in and of itself is something very good for thisforum. I could understand, if this was a new-age or believers board, why skepticism would be a bad thing. But this is not a new-age board. I amalways open to having my views scrutanized, and in my opinion so should everybody else be. However, what needs to be enforced, in my humbleopinion is a professional and intelligent standard of dialogue, and this needs to happen from an administrative level.

I think I have said enough on this issue in this thread and others, so nothing more needs to be said from me on this. The final call is obviously yoursand Winston's.

Do you know what I find interesting and confusing? The fact that the term "pseudoskeptic" is used throughout this and other posts to include the title for this website and people are subscribing to the meaning of the word and calling people names because of it. However, when I look up pseudoskeptic or pseudo-skeptic in Websters, I get this: "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above."As such, people appear to be making this term up as a derogatory defamation of character towards people who don't subscribe to the belief in the paranormal. Okay, 'nuff said on my part. I'm outta here for a while.

For the record, ciscop defined himself as a 'cynic', not a skeptic. He was not banned due to his opinions or beliefs or pseudoskeptic tactics.

There are still others like him on this forum. These others often joined up with him and shared his views. I can see why he got banned, but for the reasons cited, I know others who deserve the same. However, it would be inappropriate of me to mention them publically. Shall I pm youregarding this?

I do not understand what you mean by intelligent standard of dialogue. IMO, this forum runs rings around most other forums when it comes to intelligence. Please explain where you feel we are missing the mark.

On the whole there are some very intelligent and real skeptcs on this web site, such as obviously Winston, you, Crag Browning and many others(my list is by no means exhaustive!) andCanis I will add, is also a very good new addition. I think where we are missing the mark, is certain members who show obvious disespect to the ethos of the site. Need I mention themember who called Winston's treatise "bullshit" and who are regularly posting anti-paranormal views in paranormal threads, using very fallacy that Winston deals with in his treatise, anddisrupting a free flowing discussion to take place. My point is that to remain consistent with the ethos of this site, we need to crack down on these members and adopt a hardline policyto bring them in line with the policy of this site. Otherwise, unfortunately, and I remember an ex-member making this point as well, this forum will become like all other paranormal forumsonline(above top secret included) where most of the discussions just turn into "skeptic vs believer" arguments which go nowhere. Serious intelligent members would rather stay away from suchtime wasting dicussions.

In any case I am not calling for banning anybody on this forum. I am just saying the policy should become more strict on pseudoskeptics. This will do two things:

1) Prevent this forum from turning into another hive for pseudoskeptics to battle with "believers"(like every other darn paranormal forum online)2) Attract more intelligent pro-paranormal members, who are sick of the lack of sites online where they can go.

This site and forum is a great idea and to a large extent implemented very well, but to say there are no problems that need to be ironed out to improve it, would be terribly myopic. Myself andothers have pointed out the problem of pseudoskeptics on this board. So as was once said, "Houston, we have a problem"

Indigo Child wrote:There are still others like him on this forum. These others often joined up with him and shared his views. I can see why he got banned, but for the reasons cited, I know others who deserve the same. However, it would be inappropriate of me to mention them publically. Shall I pm youregarding this?

You are always welcomed to PM me but using the "Report this Post" feature is a much better way of pointing out specific examples. That feature allows both of us Mods and SCEPCOP to see the problem first hand. We all have availability to the "Report this Post" information.

I do not understand what you mean by intelligent standard of dialogue. IMO, this forum runs rings around most other forums when it comes to intelligence. Please explain where you feel we are missing the mark.

Indigo Child wrote:On the whole there are some very intelligent and real skeptcs on this web site, such as obviously Winston, you, Crag Browning and many others(my list is by no means exhaustive!) andCanis I will add, is also a very good new addition. I think where we are missing the mark, is certain members who show obvious disespect to the ethos of the site.

The 'ethos' of this site seem to be still developing as this particular thread is proof. I believe that I would be correct in saying that Winston is very open minded when it comes to this forum. I believe that is one of the things that set it apart from the usual.

From what I am gathering, the basic complaint seems to be connected to the debating of one's point of view rather than the actual subject material being presented. Next is the nattering over the quality of findings used to counter the point. Then it's all downhill from there.

From what I am gathering, the basic complaint seems to be connected to the debating of one's point of view rather than the actual subject material being presented. Next is the nattering over the quality of findings used to counter the point. Then it's all downhill from there.

Yep, that's it. It should be about the subject material, not about ones point of view. I am pro-discussion. However, discussions can only take place when the parties involvedare respecting each others points and engaging with them. If intead they ignore the otherspoint (doge) misrepresent their point(strawman) or name call(adhominem) then obviouslydiscussion is impossible. Now my point was this has consistently gone on in every thread recentlyby the same usual suspects, who also happen to be anti-paranormal, and this is something we need to prevent and deal with.

I have nothing against disagreements and having different points of views. I do have a problem withpeople who are so clearly anti-paranormal, and jump into every thread, turning it into yet another"skeptic vs believer" ideological debate and repeat the same nonsense, "there is no evidence" ad nauseum.Then you present some. Then they repeat it again. I am geting tired of that.